A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

You really did not answer the question, what does "separation is a bit extreme" mean'? In what way is it separated?

Is the energy of a car separated from the car? Not really. Is it the same as the car? No.

Electromagnetic waves *have* energy. But they are NOT energy, in the same way as a car *has* energy, but is not energy.

Are you suggesting by the car analogy that em radiation energy is kinetic?

Well, there is a technical sense in which that is the case (it is the kinetic energy of the photons). But it is better at this level to think of it as the energy of the electromagnetic field. An electric and/or magnetic field is NOT energy (the units are not even close to those of energy). But they *have* energy.

Your description of the em radiation of photons does not alter the fact that em radiation is energy.

NO. The em radiation *has* energy. It is not energy itself.

So are you saying that photons are devoid of energy?

No, I am not saying that. Again, how do you get that from what I said? Photons have energy. There. They are not devoid of energy. But they are NOT energy in and of themselves. Energy is a *property* that photons have.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, you say that the energy is determined by the electric and magnetic fields and that the energy is propagated in the direction perpendicular to both of those fields.

Yes, exactly.

If the energy of em waves is not an intrinsic to it, please explain the reality of separation?

Every electric field has energy. Every magnetic field has energy. All mass has energy. All movement has energy. All positions in a force field have energy. But energy is a different thing than all of these things.

You cannot separate the kinetic energy of a car from the car itself. But the car is NOT energy. The energy is intrinsic to the motion of the car, but is not identical to the motion of the car.

So, an electric field of size E (measured in Newtons/Coulomb) has an energy density of (epsilon/2)E^2 where epsilon is the permittivity of the vacuum. The energy has units of (Newton*meters). Notice that the units for electric field are not the same as either the units of energy or of energy density (newtons/meter^2).

In other words, an electric field is NOT THE SAME AS ENERGY.

And, neither is an electromagnetic waves. It *carries* energy. The energy is intrinsic to the fields. But the energy is *different* than the fields and also different than the wave.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is the energy of a car separated from the car? Not really. Is it the same as the car? No.

Electromagnetic waves *have* energy. But they are NOT energy, in the same way as a car *has* energy, but is not energy.


Well, there is a technical sense in which that is the case (it is the kinetic energy of the photons). But it is better at this level to think of it as the energy of the electromagnetic field. An electric and/or magnetic field is NOT energy (the units are not even close to those of energy). But they *have* energy.


NO. The em radiation *has* energy. It is not energy itself.



No, I am not saying that. Again, how do you get that from what I said? Photons have energy. There. They are not devoid of energy. But they are NOT energy in and of themselves. Energy is a *property* that photons have.

So you are saying a photon is the same as a car, and has kinetic energy only when it moves?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, exactly.

Every electric field has energy. Every magnetic field has energy. All mass has energy. All movement has energy. All positions in a force field have energy. But energy is a different thing than all of these things.

You cannot separate the kinetic energy of a car from the car itself. But the car is NOT energy. The energy is intrinsic to the motion of the car, but is not identical to the motion of the car.

So, an electric field of size E (measured in Newtons/Coulomb) has an energy density of (epsilon/2)E^2 where epsilon is the permittivity of the vacuum. The energy has units of (Newton*meters). Notice that the units for electric field are not the same as either the units of energy or of energy density (newtons/meter^2).

In other words, an electric field is NOT THE SAME AS ENERGY.

And, neither is an electromagnetic waves. It *carries* energy. The energy is intrinsic to the fields. But the energy is *different* than the fields and also different than the wave.

So the energy of zero point energy is actually separate from the actual universal zero point energy field?

Is the electric charge of an electron separate from the electron?

How do the electromagnetic waves carry the energy, in what separate form from the electromagnetic waves themselves?

 

[Willamena]

So you are saying a photon is the same as a car, and has kinetic energy only when it moves?

When you start a sentence with "So you are saying...," you are almost guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When you start a sentence with "So you are saying...," you are almost guaranteed to be wrong.

I am always open to tips, why would this be so? Apart that is from the fact that I think that the idea is not valid?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Now, to get back to the original (lack of) point, in what sense is an E&M wave 'tangible'?

It can be seen with your eyes silly!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't determine whether something (like time) is real based on my dreams and imaginings.

That's correct, you base it on your conceptual belief, but I am pointing out that if something is real in the sense of it being detectable in the here and now, then you should be able to prove it, but you can't because it is not a tangible thing, it's merely an artifact of the mind.

You can detect energy in the here and now, you can detect space in the here and now, you can detect matter in the here and now, but you can not detect time in the here and now because it does not exist as something tangible, it is only as a conception.

 

[Thief]

How about the official and the relevant scientific definition?

"Relevant" as in if you are talking about astronomy, all your definitions will meet the requirements of astronomy definitions. If you are referring to biology, then all your definitions must meet with the biology requirements.

Because that's how things work. Lawyers and law courts have different terms and vocabulary to that of those who work in science or in trades or businesses.

how about sticking to the notion you are here in a religious forum?

 

[Thief]

That is evidence of gravity, where is your evidence of this god magic you claim

motion has a cause......
the rotation is the result of gravity

think.....

singularity

no movement.....
then ....BANG

hollow sphere of energy....expanding.....as a pulse

OR
it was spinning BEFORE the bang

Spirit first

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, waves are waves, whether they be water, sound, etc.. Electromagnetism is not the same thing as a wave, though when the em is used as an adjective to the noun wave, it refers to the radiation of em energy.

What I have quoted from the book (Serway and Jewett), did distinguish EM waves were different from mechanical waves, and I understand the differences.

But what I have quoted and highlighted in colours are about EM waves, and as waves possessing energy.

I am not saying energy isn't important. They are very important in matters, particle physics, in all types of field and wave physics, etc.

But my point is that in EM physics, the proper label is either EM "wave" or radiation, not EM energy.

No I agree that my English is spotty, but my understanding in physics...in this case...is correct.

 

[gnostic]

how about sticking to the notion you are here in a religious forum?

But we are in a topic about religion and science. You would use the most appropriate vocabulary for religion, just as you would use the most appropriate language for whatever field in science that you would be discussing, don't you agree?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What I have quoted from the book (Serway and Jewett), did distinguish EM waves were different from mechanical waves, and I understand the differences.

But what I have quoted and highlighted in colours are about EM waves, and as waves possessing energy.

I am not saying energy isn't important. They are very important in matters, particle physics, in all types of field and wave physics, etc.

But my point is that in EM physics, the proper label is either EM "wave" or radiation, not EM energy.

No I agree that my English is spotty, but my understanding in physics...in this case...is correct.

Haha, because the book you are studying does not use the term is besides the point, obviously it is not germane to the area of interest, but there are times when it is relevant and proper to use the term energy. Even your microwave oven gives you a hint, how many watts is it rated at? All radio and radar transmission systems are rated in RF wattage transmitted, 100 KW, 10 KW, etc.. That means the radio or radar as appropriate, radio frequency energy output.

 

[gnostic]

Now some advice for your further self education, you will never understand physics textbooks until you have a good understanding of English. Your post is a prime example of a mish mash of information about different things you have read in your elementary physics book, that has no coherency as to the relevance of em energy. So get your English dictionary out and use it to understand the meaning of each and every word you used in the post and try and make sense of what you have written?

Now you are being a *******.

My understanding in classic physics are fine. My understanding in modern physics are also fine...as long as it is not theoretical physics. I have never studied theoretical physics, and only know the basics about it.

I have two different career parts, one in civil engineering (after high school), the other computer science (mid-30s). Both required understanding of physics and mathematics that applied to the respective courses I was studying.

For instance, in civil engineering, the main focuses of physics were Newtonian mechanics (mass, forces and gravity, due to understanding the properties of building materials of steel and concrete) and hydrological mechanics (with water and sewerage pipes no mains).

In computer science, my major was in programming and systems analysis, but my minor was in network. In both major and minor, most of physics involved in understanding electricity and electronic circuitry and EM field that were applicable to computers, but in network, I have to have knowledge not only cable technology, but also any wireless network, such as satellite, wi-fi, Bluetooth technologies, etc.

 

[gnostic]

Haha, because the book you are studying does not use the term is besides the point, obviously it is not germane to the area of interest, but there are times when it is relevant and proper to use the term energy. Even your microwave oven gives you a hint, how many watts is it rated at? All radio and radar transmission systems are rated in RF wattage transmitted, 100 KW, 10 KW, etc.. That means the radio or radar as appropriate, radio frequency energy output.

Again, you are using words as if they were interchangeable, but there are distinctions between the two, in physics.

Are you confusing energy with power, now???

Watts are unit for power, eV (electron volt) for energy (1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 joules).

The formula for power is energy divided by time:

P = E / t​

As to energy, there are many formulas for energy, so it depends on which fields in physics (eg potential/kinetic, mechanical waves, sound waves, EM waves, gravitational, etc) you are referring to.

In our case, EM waves, photon has an energy of

E = h . c / (lambda)​

Which is Planck's constant, speed of light and wavelength.

Look, Ben. With physics, I just like to be more precise with the terminology. You have the tendency to mix them up.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I'm not sure if I can post a poll on here but who here believes that the universe originated from nothing? As some of the major scientific theories from the 20th century claimed or was there an originator of some sort? Doesn't have to be God necessarily in your opinion. Who believes the universe has no beginning? I'm just curious as to what you guys believe with regard to this topic and what the basis of your belief would be?

I don't think that the universe came from nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Now you are being a *******.

My understanding in classic physics are fine. My understanding in modern physics are also fine...as long as it is not theoretical physics. I have never studied theoretical physics, and only know the basics about it.

I have two different career parts, one in civil engineering (after high school), the other computer science (mid-30s). Both required understanding of physics and mathematics that applied to the respective courses I was studying.

For instance, in civil engineering, the main focuses of physics were Newtonian mechanics (mass, forces and gravity, due to understanding the properties of building materials of steel and concrete) and hydrological mechanics (with water and sewerage pipes no mains).

In computer science, my major was in programming and systems analysis, but my minor was in network. In both major and minor, most of physics involved in understanding electricity and electronic circuitry and EM field that were applicable to computers, but in network, I have to have knowledge not only cable technology, but also any wireless network, such as satellite, wi-fi, Bluetooth technologies, etc.

Good for you, I am sure you are doing well. Are you working in the RF field?

A lot of the terminology tends to get standardised along the way, convention if you like, and somehow you have not come across it, but RF energy is a term not unusual. Now RF stands for Radio Frequency which I am sure you know, and which is just another name for radio waves or electromagnetic waves.

Here are a couple of links for you to browse....

Radiofrequency Background

What is radiofrequency energy (RF)?

Radiofrequency (RF) energy is another name for radio waves. It is one form of electromagnetic energy which consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together (radiating) through space. The area where these waves are found is called an electromagnetic field.

Electromagnetic Spectrum - Introduction

Measuring electromagnetic radiation

Electromagnetic radiation can be expressed in terms of energy, wavelength, or frequency. Frequency is measured in cycles per second, or Hertz. Wavelength is measured in meters. Energy is measured in electron volts. Each of these three quantities for describing EM radiation are related to each other in a precise mathematical way. But why have three ways of describing things, each with a different set of physical units?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, you are using words as if they were interchangeable, but there are distinctions between the two, in physics.

Are you confusing energy with power, now???

Watts are unit for power, eV (electron volt) for energy (1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 joules).

The formula for power is energy divided by time:

P = E / t​

As to energy, there are many formulas for energy, so it depends on which fields in physics (eg potential/kinetic, mechanical waves, sound waves, EM waves, gravitational, etc) you are referring to.

In our case, EM waves, photon has an energy of

E = h . c / (lambda)​

Which is Planck's constant, speed of light and wavelength.

Look, Ben. With physics, I just like to be more precise with the terminology. You have the tendency to mix them up.

No, I am not confusing them, RF power is merely energy at work.

Btw, the question you asked is all you needed....why do you have to copy and paste irrelevant stuff when a few words would do?

 

[gnostic]

Btw, the question you asked is all you needed....why do you have to copy and paste irrelevant stuff when a few words would do?

Sorry, but I didn't copy-and-paste in my last reply (the one you have quoted), but did in the one before that.

 

[gnostic]

No, I am not confusing them, RF power is merely energy at work.

Ok that might be the case.

But are certainly confusing radiation (wave) with energy.

Like polymath have tried to explain to you, the same thing that I have tried to do the same - radiation isn't energy itself, but radiation do carry energy and momentum.

Serway and Jewett, whose book (Physics for Scientists and Engineer with Modern Physics) I have quoted, back in post 3337, stated precisely what I have been saying all along.

You quoted from dictionary, but a dictionary isn't a physics book, so in the matter of relevancy, Ben, I have quoted from a more reliable and appropriate source, you didn't.

We are been stubborn about it, but you ridiculed my English, which I won't deny is nowhere near the best, but you belittled my knowledge on physics.

Just because my English needs a great deal of improvement, you are wrong about my understanding on EM physics, and you are wrong to think your dictionary provided with right answer.

My suggestion to you, is to use textbook next time, instead of a dictionary.